Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 04/21/2008 9:22 am

Does a Little Obama 'Elitism' Go a Long Way in Politics?

Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama
AP

JOAN: What is this thing of Obama being perceived as an elitist? Is it important? Is it going to harm him? What do you think?

LIZ: I think it does harm him. And the National Review story on Michelle Obama complaining to ladies in Ohio about how could the two of them live on $500,000 a year, and how they couldn’t pay for their children’s tennis and dancing lessons, or piano lessons, or something. But, honestly, you have to admire the Obamas. They’re an upscale, young American couple. They’re a model for every downtrodden person in America. So, I think a little elitism goes a long way. I think it both helps and hurts. It’s like people having money or being rich. Well everybody wants that. The public wants the same thing. So I think it’s sort of a two-edged sword. But do I think the Obamas are intellectual elitists, probably. They’re smarter than the rest of us.

LESLEY: You come at this issue the way we come at the whole campaign now – now that we’re this deep in. And that is with certain preconceived opinions. If you like Obama, I don’t think it bothers you at all. If you don’t like Obama, it’s a huge thing. And this is why, to me – and I’ve always said this to some criticism – when it comes to the president, the most important thing the people vote on is likability. That you get down to hearing these discussions about the issues and they get so confusing. Sometimes the difference between the candidates – and this is true between Obama and Hillary Clinton – the differences on issues is so small that it’s very difficult to listen, where you can’t go back and re-read and figure out exactly who said what. And then, if they disagree, the argument goes back and forth and back and forth and you agree when this one says it and then you agree when the other one says it. You get lost. So you end up making your decision on whether you trust them, whether you’re comfortable with them, whether they convey a sense of confidence, comfortableness in their skin. And I think that Hillary Clinton runs the risk, in this particular question of whether he’s elitist, of being too heavy-handed. And I noticed the other day there was a new poll. It said that her negatives on this likability factor have gone way up as she keeps pounding away at this. It could end up where, yes, he’s painted as an elitist. But she gets hurt more than he does by it.

JOAN: Whoopi?

WHOOPI: I just think it’s the most ridiculous thing in the world. You know, it’s a phenomenon which, had both candidates been white, wouldn’t be as big an issue as it’s become, because they painted John Kennedy the same way, that he was an elitist. So now they’re saying Obama’s an elitist because he pretty much said that when this is happening and this is happening and this is happening, people cling to those things that they know best, that they’re most comfortable with. He didn’t say, "Only people in Pennsylvania." He said, "Folks who have gone through this kind of experience." He didn’t say, "Only white people." He didn’t say, "Only poor people." And it’s the same with rich white folks. They cling to what they know. All of us do it.

LESLEY: Whoopi, I think the fear the Democrats have with this issue is not because he’s a person of color. It’s because the Republicans latch onto this exact kind of argument time and again and make it work for them. As with Adlai Stevenson, with Dukakis, with Kerry, with Gore …

WHOOPI: Well, what’s the matter is the Democrats are an elitist group. That’s the truth.

320 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye
Dee- “The conservatives…run up huge debts, start endless wars, and cripple the econony. …reducing our constitutional rights and crony capitalism, which has made most Americans poorer…bigger debts, opaque government and shrinking the middle class.” Right…just what are they ‘conserving’…certainly not the environment, economy, the dollar, the Constitution, or America’s standing in the world.
By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 04/21/2008 8:56 pm
beverly linens
That sounds great but that isn’t what happened. The old values of the Republican party were thrown into the ashcan by this administration. No one, no one has driven up the national debt more than Bush’s bunch. I’m a lifetime Republican and I’m embarrased by his spending habits and poor stand on the freedom of the individual in this country. I voted for McCain in the primary eight years ago but won’t this time because we as women can’t afford eight more years of Republican additions to the Supreme Court. Please, you Democrats please pick a good candidate for me to vote for. Bev
By beverly linens on 04/21/2008 7:35 pm
Ms. Dee
Gender-elitsim. There’s a thought.
By Ms. Dee on 04/21/2008 4:50 pm
Beth Cavalli
Being “Elite” seems to be referring to someone with alot of money, socialite type life style and no clue about the common man. Ok, seems that Obama’s wife fits the defination. (based on her comments.) What will hurt Obama is not the Elite actions of his wife, that might be secondary, but, his non committment to issues and only focusing on proposing “Change”. His tenure in learning how government works is very short. Mrs. Clinton has her own issues. Any item during her husbands presidency that any particular person dislikes, will be a barrier for her. Which will be sad, as she will not be viewed for her own accomplishments, which when you look at her cross party accomplishments in the senate, are very good. Glamour and little experience or Experience and known failure and drive. Kennedy got the nomination and the vote on hope for the future. He did well in a very different time. I think the Elite were not as exposed as they are today by the media. Yes, this would hurt Obama in the end. It will be a PR nightmare if he gets elected and we want the President to be focusing on issues and his job, not how to show his wife that she has a much smaller budget and it is not hers to spend…..Jackie Kennedy held herself with grace and courage. She may have been Elite, but, the common woman/man saw her as a concerned citizen and appreciative of all americans, not a person who has no clue about the situation of the common man. Elite in Mrs. Obama’s way will hurt him, as doesn’t our spouse reflect who we are as well?
By Beth Cavalli on 04/21/2008 12:55 pm
Star Lawrence
The Wall St Journal had a story about how Michelle’s clothes are copies of Jackie outfits—they showed them both wearing their matching outfits. I keep getting this feeling that this is staged and someone already knows how this election ends.
By Star Lawrence on 04/21/2008 5:24 pm
Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye
Star- Now that Rupert Murdock owns the WSJ the editorial slant with be the same as his other outlets like Fox. Many women all over the world still admire Jackie Kennedy. And though Michelle Obama was born on Chicago’s South Side, far from the monied background of Jackie’s youth, she was still educated at Princeton and Harvard and was recently chosen one of the best dressed women in the world. I recently watched a French comic online who after her performance left the stage, and hearing comments comparing her to, Jackie Kennedy, ran back on stage beaming, her arms upstretched, exclaiming “Merci! Merci!” 47 years after her famous visit to Paris where two million French citizens were out in the street chanting, “Viva Jackie!!” “Viva l’Amerique!!” Jackie is still beloved the world over….where Bush had to sneak in the back door of Buckingham Palace because 250,000 were out in the front burning his effigy. The Democrats do not have the power to stage an election, and Mrs. Obama while attractive can never be the former First Lady. There will never be another Jackie Kennedy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcsrpkEHUEk
By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 04/21/2008 10:21 pm
J C
The problem with Democratic Elitistist is that they pretend they aren’t . They pretend the Republicans are “the Elite Rich”, financed by Big Business, while they, the Dems, are just plain folk, who wouldn’t let a Lobbyist within 20 miles of their campaign financing. The bottom line is that while sometimes Change is nice, the change from Democracy to Socialism is flat out insane. That is the issue in front of us….not how smooth or rich or elite any candidate is, or what gender, color or age, but which Party wants us all so totally dependent on the Government that we follow like lemmings. To trash what the Country stands for, give up our hard earned rights in order to have cradle to grave “security” will be what Sen. Obamas vision of change will bring….but that seems to be what many think they want….and maybe what they deserve.
By J C on 04/21/2008 1:03 pm
Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye
JC- DEPENDENT on the government? Do you mean DEPENDENT as when the major US city is under attack and the Commander in Chief sits and reads “My Pet Goat” to school children? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro3o-ld0CWw&feature=related Do you mean DEPENDENT as when a US major port city is under water than we’d kinda like the Commander in Chief to stop PRETENDING to play the guitar and eating cake? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6oyTvNZBek Do mean DEPENDENT as in not wanting the Commander in Chief not to illegally invade a country to “FREE” it’s people? Street scene of Baghdad 2 weeks before Bush invaded: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC4EJ8Jlck0&feature=related Bush announcing that he as Commander in Chief of the [the] richest, most powerful, and technologically advanced nation and military invaded Iraq, a country 2/3s the size of California: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkOCIfNQXP0&feature=related Even knowing Iraq wasn’t a danger to the US? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU Bush lying about why he went to Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SUBGtRIiXo&feature=related Delivering Shock and Awe on a concentrated urban city of 5 million, 50% of them children under 15, and when he KNEW Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and had no WMD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJmKZxNG0S8 Do you mean DEPENDENT as when the GOP sweeps the money from the treasury and the pockets of the people to enrich it’s friends Halliburton et al with billions in no-bid contracts for an illegal war in a nation that wasn’t a threat and hadn’t attacked us? http://www.truemajorityaction.org/oreos/ Do you mean DEPENDENT on a government that makes everything good about America go away?
By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 04/21/2008 6:10 pm
Terri Vinck
Well, I don’t like any of them. Barack is too slick to be believed, Hillary is just a liar. She says she has eight years of experience in the White House. Really? Was she in the “war room”? Was she elected to do anything at all besides keep the other side of the bed flat when Bill was out late? Please don’t make me think she has presidential experience although she does have the fibbing thing down. She was a glorified housekeeper. And McCain? What kind of man comes home to a woman who waited for him all those years, who was in a serious accident and needed him when he has an affair with a rich bitch and dumps his invalid wife. This is presidential material? I’m going to write in somebody for president and exercise my vote to refuse to vote for these creatures they want to force down our throats.
By Terri Vinck on 04/21/2008 1:19 pm
Willow K
I wonder if our seeming obsession with electing a president who is ‘like us’ is in part due ways the culture has changed due to technology changes such as television and the internet. I would think that a scholar of presidential campaigns could show that a candidate’s relatibililty has been an issue before, but now we seem to act like its the most important thing, whether the candidate ‘knows’ us. Realistically no candidate can relate to all parts of the country, and it takes a very ambitious and usually smart person to run for president. I think it would be better to focus on how the person makes decisions, like do they consider multiple points of view etc. I heard one person suggest that instead of debates, we should have the candidates perform under simulated conditions to see how they’d do in the job. Probably a bit too much like reality TV, but might be better than arguing over who’s an elitist and who’s not.
By Willow K on 04/21/2008 1:48 pm
Felicity Split
I am apalled at some of the comments here. It doesn’t matter what one THINKs a word means. There is a definition for elitist. It means what it means and it isn’t pretty. If this is what being a progressive means I don’t want any part of it. e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism n. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class. That sums up Hillary and Obamya pretty well don’t you think?
By Felicity Split on 04/21/2008 1:54 pm
Ms. Dee
No.
By Ms. Dee on 04/21/2008 3:05 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe
DITTO!!!!!!
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 04/21/2008 4:09 pm
Dee Ann Viramontes
Felicity, I think it sums up the entire Republican party. Add religious nuts and you have the whole enchilada. Thanks for the definition!
By Dee Ann Viramontes on 04/21/2008 8:07 pm
Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye
Felicity—I don’t know what dictionary you’re using but in mine elite means the best. As in elite authors, musicians, universities, presidents, etc. Control, rule, domination? As in Bush destroying our economy, Constitution, and two other nations? Here’s a chart of growth of GNP under presidents since JFK (the best) the worst records were Bush I and Bush II. http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive? month=01&year=2008&base_name=your_world_in_charts_how_good Here’s a Constitutional Professor from Georgetown on how Bush has destroyed the sacred documents of our Founding Fathers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE&feature=related President (and war hero/General) Eisenhower (R) in his Farewell Address to the Nation warned against the very Military-Industrial Complex that Bush Inc has institutionalized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU Sense of entitlement? That’s Bush Inc and their friends and it’s cost us, the taxpayers $3 trillion. For what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7S8TRIyDjs&NR=1 REPUBLICANS BANNED THIS BEING SHOWED IN CONGRESS. CONTROL? DOMINATION? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE&feature=related
By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 04/21/2008 9:42 pm